Why 17?
Tony Blair has said this morning and yesterday that he is considering lowering the age at which there is a mandatory sentence for possessing handguns from 21 to17?
I can't understand why 17 has been picked, except as a totally arbitrary figure. Why is someone at aged 17 who possesses a hand gun any more of a threat to society than someone at age 13, 14, 15 or 16?
Part of this problem, apparently, stems from drug gangs recruiting teenagers to do their dirty work for them because of the peculiarities of a law, which protects teenagers from prison. Won't an arbitrary age of 17, just force them to use ever-younger people?
I can't understand why 17 has been picked, except as a totally arbitrary figure. Why is someone at aged 17 who possesses a hand gun any more of a threat to society than someone at age 13, 14, 15 or 16?
Part of this problem, apparently, stems from drug gangs recruiting teenagers to do their dirty work for them because of the peculiarities of a law, which protects teenagers from prison. Won't an arbitrary age of 17, just force them to use ever-younger people?
posted by Martin Curtis at 1:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home